Category Archives: Politics

Halliburton and the Bush II Krewe

Anymore, criticizing the Bush administration is like having an unproductive cough- the stuff is so deep in there that you can’t hack up the obstructing mass. And so it is with the current president and appointees, who are insinuated into the deep recesses of power like a resistant strain of waxy mycobacterium. 

Serial government haters all, the Bush II krewe has privatized large chunks of gov’t service work and handed it on a no-bid platter to loyal backers like Halliburton who are largely registered in tax haven countries.

Unwilling to make the ultimate commitment to the USA (or wanting cover its tracks), Halliburton moved its headquarters to the United Arab Emirates. Presumably to take advantage of the tax-free business environment and the lack of a troublesome extradition treaty with the USA.  The status of Halliburton as a foreign contractor needs to be examined in public. 

Yes, this is old news, but Americans should not forget this outrage.  According to HalliburtonWatch, Cheney himself increased the number of foreign tax haven subsidiaries from 9 to 44 during his time there as CEO. 

There is nothing illegal about taking advantage of tax law.  But at some point a company has to decide what country they support and what side of history they want to be on. That which is possible is not necessarily manditory. When money is the only scorecard, ethics fly out the window. Stockholders bear as much responsibility for this craven behaviour as do the officers. [*crunching* noise as I step off the soapbox]

Halliburton became a successful company in part through it’s use of resources provided by the US taxpayer.  Halliburton used US government funded highways to get its goods and services moved around the US. Their security was provided by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marines.  Halliburton staff and stockholders are protected from epidemic by the Centers for Disease Control. Sewage from Halliburton office buildings goes into local municipal  waste treatment plants. Physicians trained in publically subsidized medical institutions lance their boils and treat their childrens ear infections. The list of benefits from public infrastructure is substantial.

Now these greedy corporate ex-patriots want to shelter their earnings from tax liability. They don’t want to contribute to the upkeep of the very system that facilitated their ascent to wealth.

This entire thing is so dirty and so extensive, it will take a generation to understand it and legislate corrective action. The whole fetid, reeking mess is offensive.

Chemical Business in Russia- One Experience

Hearing of the passing of Boris Yeltsin, I can’t help but remember my trip to his northern empire in 2000.  We boarded a Lufthansa flight in Frankfurt, seemingly filled to the scuppers with jabbering Russian tourists anxious to return from their trip abroad. We left rainy Germany for the port city of St. Petersburg, near the mouth of the Neva River. Most of the terrain was obscured beneath heavy clouds so there was nothing to see until our descent at 10:30 pm. The sun sets late at 60 degrees north in the spring.  As we were coming down from cruise altitude, the lush green landscape became visible through breaks in the clouds.  We were going to land in Russia.

While the purpose of the trip was business, I was determined to soak in as much of the experience as possible. I had a total of one paltry year of Russian language in college so I could at least sound out the words and recall a tiny bit of vocabulary. 

In the late 1990’s doing business in Russia- that is, buying Russian goods- could be complicated. This was late in Yeltsin’s term and a kind of cynical take on the free market was beginning to set in.  Earlier, the eastern bloc had imploded and the communist hold on Russia was in deconstruction. Under Yeltsin a select few had managed to amass wealth- the so-called Oligarchs.  But as a few like Khodorkovsky were to eventually learn, wealth does not automatically confer political power in Russia.

Doing business in Russia was a highly manual activity. In 2000, the start of the Putin years, Russia lacked much of the business infrastructure that we in the west take for granted. When I say “business infrastructure”, I refer to the whole picture- commercial credit; internationally compatible contract and tort law; credible mechanisms for the flow of currency; GAAP; a multimodal transportation network; a comprehensible market exchange for commodities; and a market place with suppliers and specialists for the many instruments of finance and insurance. 

In the Yeltsin years, many formerly state-owned factories came under control of people who conducted business in facilities through quiet arrangements behind the curtain.  Factories would operate at low intensity or would even be shut down until orders came in.  Workers were furlowed and operated taxi’s or did other odd jobs until an order arrived.  Maybe this still happens today.  I don’t know.

We needed product that was made by a very few specialists in the world and one of those vendors was in central Russia.  Russian manufacturers are as skilled as we are of course, but there are differences in business culture that may be hard to anticipate.  Western standards concerning documentation was a particular problem.  I recall that our vendor was quite carefree about lot traceability and packaging.   They also had the maddening habit of reusing old lot numbers.

Then there was the problem of shipping.  Russia did not then, and still may not, have anything remotely similar to Aldrich.  Now, you probably think of Aldrich as the “chemical supply house” and you’d be right. But I’m thinking of Aldrich as the “master of logistics”.  Logistics in Russia was a problem.  Ground transportation was unreliable. Our solution was to hire a local to bird-dog the whole process.  It was worth every penny.

One of the differences I found was in the attitude of the few manufacturers I was in contact with.  They were usually aware of western prices for their goods and were never afraid to demand Aldrich-type pricing.   In the west, the customer is king.  That is just taken for granted.  Uppity suppliers are soon former suppliers. 

What I ran into in Russia was something that I hadn’t seen anywhere else, including China or Taiwan.  Our Russian supplier wanted to dictate terms and was unwilling to budge- I think they call it “Vlast”.  We absolutely needed better prices for the raw material.  I’m sure that there were urgent arrangements behind the curtains that were part of the need to stand fast. But in the end, it was their absolute inflexibility that caused them to lose the business. 

While in Russia I did try to source other raw materials and “vendors” who could supply spot buys of particular compounds.  At the time, many chemical factories were partially shuttered, so custom chemical processing capacity was very much hit and miss.  Processing equipment sat in dark and idled buildings waiting for a purchase order and prepayment. 

We met with principals in an empty flat to talk about the manufacture of custom compounds. But the same problem always arose. They wanted cash up front, preferably deposited in a European bank.  I was very clear that this was not the transaction model that we were accustomed to and in fact, this requirement was a showstopper. My Russian contacts were mystified that an American would come all this way only to refuse to pony up the cash to get the ball rolling. And that is where my attempts at trying to do business with Russia ended. 

The operators of the factories I was in contact with had the pots and pans, skilled staff, and expertise in the technology- these guys were first rate technocrats. At first glance, what they lacked was the benefit of investment capital to plow into their operations to find and service customers.  But, digging deeper, it wan’t just the hard cash they lacked. There was a system-wide lack of free market history and culture that, elsewhere, would have provided the institutions and mechanisms to exploit opportunity. 

I admire Russia and I believe that they will eventually get their system working well.  But they do need to get away from the fascination with the strongman model of governance. From my travels I have concluded that countries with cultures that date far back are simultaneously blessed and cursed by it.  They are blessed by the warm embrace of cultural richness. But they are also cursed by it because it can be a sort of ball and chain that complicates the adoption of change.

Note: This was written a few months prior to posting.

Copyright 2007

American Parliament, part II

In a previous posting, I daydreamed about an American system that more resembled a parliamentary system. The motivation for this is that our executive branch has apparently gone astray with the presidents military ambitions in nation building under the guise of the war against terrorism. The ability to dissolve a government off the election cycle and repopulate it with different characters seems like a desirable attribute.

Viet Nam and GW-II are examples of ideological pageantry lead by stubborn presidents. Like the fighter pilot who is so target fixated on his opponent that he follows him into the ground, we cannot allow our presidents to drag the country into self-inflicted disaster.

As suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the noises now coming from the White House concerning Iran resemble the noises made by the same White House about Iraq.  What is strange about this distressing circumstance is this: The checks and balances that are provided by the constitution seem to be inadequate to restrain the executive.  The congress seems to be genuinely flummoxed.

Despite popular sentiment and wise counsel by very well regarded citizens, the president continues to press for ideological conquest in the middle east.  Despite the floundering dollar, no-child-left-behind-except-for-4-million-uninsured-kids, and tera-dollars of debt accumulated in the “War Against ______”, our executive continues to press on within the bounds of the constitution.

The question is this: Does the US Constitution provide adequate checks and balances against the abuse of power?

I suppose it is inevitable that a president would be elected who didn’t have both oars in the water. Who knows if this guy really is disturbed. But the executive retains substantial control of the military.  The president is able to amass a vast force of civilian security contractors who seem to be beyond the audit of the congress.  Does your view change when they pack weapons and answer only to the executive branch? Did the framers miss this possibility?

The US has a president that is hell-bent on performing a script that is neither transparent nor mandated by anything other than the enchanting voices of a few dark characters who are temporarily burrowed in the White House. We’ve had 2 terms of a war president. It’s enough.

Kunstlers Most Excellent Rant

If you don’t read Jim Kunstlers blog, Cluster***k Nation, you’re really missing out on some juicy stuff. Thanks to the all-seeing eye of Uncle Al for this particular post.  Kunstler writes with a manic urgency rather like Hunter S. Thompson (and … Uncle Al).  I’m not calibrated for the negative spin on the mortgage disaster that he makes.  Perhaps others can comment.

Tempest Down Under. Bush-Roh Row.

It is funny to read about the minor presidential dust-up between the Bush and Roh. The fracas is now being blamed on poor translation. That could be true.  But how do you focus on a fuzzy picture? The translators art is to precisely translate ambiguous language. There are too many degrees of freedom- it’s like pushing a rope. The presidents walk away as the translator falls on his sword.  I think I’d rather work with hazardous chemicals.

Booyah

It is worth reading the latest essay in New York Magazine by Jim “Mad Money” Cramer on the sub-prime lending crisis. No booyah’s or sound effects in this article.  I hear some commentators going on about this circumstance as a normal equilibration of the economy. But after reading Cramer’s editorial it is hard to believe this is just a “correction”.   Sounds like a train wreck.

It is hard to fathom how the massive upset in the mortgage market will play out for those of us engaged in chemical manufacturing. Anything that depresses home construction and mortgage lending is sure to slow down orders for raw materials in some fashion.  The rat is moving through the snake. This disturbance could eventually effect those remote from the mortgage business. 

Cramer is clearly an expert of some sort in the finance field. But it is good to remember that it was finance experts who fabricated the house of cards that got them (us) into this problem in the first place. This supprts my theory that we have too many MBA’s in the world.

Rove Bails

Interesting overlap of events.  The current issue of the Atlantic has a rather detailed and unflattering account of the “Rove  Presidency”.  This morning, Karl Rove announces his resignation, effective at months end. This bombshell was released by the Wall Street Journal.

Given the nature of the characters, it is hard to believe that a hundred articles like the one in The Atlantic would be enough to compell Rove to resign.  My guess is that he has been calculating a departure for some time.  The endgame of the Bush II presidency is probably not something he wants his name associated with. Rove is all about election “strategery”.  Guiding a battered ship to permanent drydock is not his gig. Rove is a builder, not a custodian.

Rove and his sort are like skittish sea otters. You try to swim up to them and they pop below the surface only to come back up in the distance.  Rove seems to breath politics. The idea that he is retired from such activity is tough to swallow. Rove is not on-air talent. He is the guy running the editing booth off-stage.

Corporate Freeloaders?

Our local area is graced with the presence of a biomedical drug production facility.  The company manufactures important, lifesaving products from which mankind benefits and in doing so, the company makes a handsome profit.  They also have a production facility in a Caribbean Island Territory which also manufactures important products.  I understand that they are a very progressive organization. Friends, family, and colleagues from grad school work at the local plant and at the R&D office in Many Trees, in some coastal state. [Note: the name and location have been cleverly disguised or omitted- Th’ Gaussling]

Meanwhile, there is a constant buzz concerning the possibility of moving the entire mfg operation to this Caribbean paradise where the tax and labor costs are significantly lower.  I have no special inside information  here, I just know that this has been considered.

The situation outline is in no way unique to the particular company I’m thinking of. It is a very common situation.  Company decides to move operations off-shore to continue profit growth of a successful product. Shareholders continue to enjoy good returns on their investment, product pricing is competitive and the company continues to hold on to market share. Everybody’s happy, right?

Back at the corporate HQ, assets are safely nestled in the Unites States of America, under the 24/7 protection of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.  Corporate human and capital assets (shareholder assets, really) enjoy the benefits of the vast infrastructure of the USA.  Materials and people move safely and efficiently over land and through the skys of the USA.  The FAA assures air safety and orderly movement in the skies.  The DOT assures motor vehicle safety. State and federal monies provide for highways, bridges, and all of the motorway infrastructure to keep the trucks of raw materials and product moving. 

Federal, state, and local governmental agencies provide reservoirs for water and electricity. Plant process water comes from a pipe put in place by the local water district infrastructure.  Sanitary water treatment is provided by the municipality.  The streets are patrolled by city and county police who are charged with crime prevention.

Corporate scientists who invent the technology that the company profits from so handsomely and the executives who guide product to market were educated within the vast academic/research complex that has made the USA the envy of the world.  Graduate student and post-doctoral stipends in science and engineering are largely funded by some government agency or other.

Corporate researchers have access to enormous volumes of public domain technology and knowledge paid for by NSF and NIH grants. Researchers who were educated at public institutions with public subsidies take their talent and generate treasure for the corporations and the shareholders.

Yet, a great many corporate entities are escaping tax liability by moving manufacturing off-shore.  Corporations whose very existance is owed to their fertile, wealthy, and knowledge rich nation have somehow seen fit to evade paying back into the system so as to perpetuate that very system from which they benefit so handsomely.  Instead, others contribute to sustain it.

The advantage of substantial US infrastructure amounts to a kind of subsidy.  The purpose of this subsidy is to stimulate the formation of wealth generating organizations who can then provide jobs and stability for the economy.  Instead, we find that corporations are tapping US knowledge wealth and eventually using it to subsidize foreign economies. 

There are mathematical justifications for this transfer of manufacturing from the local to the foreign.  More profits flow to the shareholders- the big players and those who hold 401(k) plans.  Growth is sustained and a competitive edge is held.  But is it really? Could it be just the result of poor imagination?

Tom “Nuke ’em” Tancredo (R-CO)

Our very own representative TomTancredo (R-CO) has outlined conditions under which he would retaliate against the Muslim shrines of Mecca and Medina. A terrorist nuclear explosion in the US would be grounds for President Tancredo to authorize release of nuclear weapons against these two Holy Sites.

Now, it stands to reason that if a nuclear explosion occurs in the US, the president has to do something. According to Iowapolitics.com, Tancredo said

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”  

To Tancredo’s credit he did come up with an actual idea – on his own – that if we get nuked by terrorists, we should do something.  The problem with his solution of nuking Muslim shrines is that it would be a localized attack on a delocalized problem. Muslim antipathy towards the US is a political viewpoint; it is a philosophy that justifies their indulgence in one of mankinds most sensuous of opiate pleasures. 

That pleasure is the near universal impulse to throw oneself down prostrate and grovel before the deity.  Muslims of a certain bent (not all of them, mind you) have refined the notion of extreme groveling through the use of explosives. They enthusiastically celebrate this peculiar form of reverence with the pious formalism of martyrdom. For millions of young angry men with no viable economic future, it has an irresistable appeal.

Ascetic leaders like bin Laden are not motivated by the physical plane. Bin Laden is very much a charismatic hero figure who has cast off attachment to the material world. This is a kind of archetype. To the satisfaction of his followers, he lives in caves and walks the covetless path. Bin Laden’s goal is an Islamic Caliphate. A nuclear retalliation against any Muslim state, much less a shrine, will polarize many millions to bin Laden’s cause of Muslim hegemony for centuries to come.   

There is some need deep within the human brain to assume an inferior posture before the deity. It cuts across all societies and religions.  It is seems somehow discordant that the diety who set the spin of galaxies and the organization of DNA in motion curiously requires that humans proclaim their regret for those very attributes that make them simply human.  It is a most peculiar and, I think, biological, proclivity.

It seems to me that the optimal response to an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack on the US can only be this- No nuclear response in kind.  We absorb it and we express our regret that this heinous act was perpetrated on us.  It would be our nuclear restraint that would cause the terrorist movement to stand out before the world as the focus of savagery.

Realistically, could a US president actually do this? It seems doubtful.  The pressure on a sitting president to release a nuclear weapon in response to nuclear attack at home would be enormous.  Our restraint and the cessation of one-sided middle eastern policies would do more to undermine bin Laden and his kind than any fancy weapons system or occupation force. It would be the one weapon that they could not counter.  Consider the examples of Christ, Ghandi, and King.

The extinction of Muslim extremism must come from internal collapse. Muslims themselves must conclude that vile and murderous behaviour is unacceptable and that the religious justification for murder is a misread of their covenant with the deity.  

Extremists amplify their effect with chemical energy- they use explosives.  A small number of terrorists become Robin Hood characters and receive encouragement and recruits from their more passive background of countrymen. You can’t destroy this with airpower and mobile infantry. 

A nuclear retalliation by the US would vitrify a few sandy locations, but it would also politically unify Muslims behind the extremist cause, irrespective of the damage done to the US in the first place. We cannot win by nuclear retalliation. We only facilitate further use of nuclear force.  The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not valid in the conflict with suicidal terrorists. MAD is a doctrine that is only valid between nation states with armies and the desire to survive.

All of this is not to say that we wouldn’t be pursuing the perpetrators.  But nuclear demolition of Mecca would be counterproductive. Terrorism is a kind of franchise operation.  How do you nuke the 50 or 5000 scattered, clandestine operatives who did the deed? It’s a bug hunt. The destruction of Mecca would only validate core suspicions about us- that we are metaphysically corrupt and maybe bin Laden was right.

A state can’t successfully wage a military shooting war against an idea promulgated by clandestine operators with little to lose. But police investigation over 20 years in concert with intelligent and fair international policies could render the bin Laden characters obsolete.